Adultery vs Fornication

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Antipas

You make a point I think we can all agree on.

We should seek the LORD for peace on the matter regardless of the interpretation we hold.

But with interpretations as they are, if one believes that there is an applicable acception clause, aren't they bound to actually put that belief into practice to ensure that they are holding to the clause they claim to believe in?

Now, with my position, remarriage to another after a divorce is always a sin. Therefore, if one finds that they cannot contain and reconcile with their ex, one must always approach God with a contrite spirit, confessing the sin, and weakness to attain God's forgiveness and favor. It's the same approach for everyone regardless of the grounds of the previous divorce.

If your ex-spouse has no interest in reconciling, then Paul's admonition about marrying to avoid sexual sin comes into play. It is still better to marry than to burn.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Originalist

If your ex-spouse has no interest in reconciling, then Paul's admonition about marrying to avoid sexual sin comes into play. It is still better to marry than to burn.

well I've never heard that one before.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Exactly. Jesus was saying "Anyone who puts away his WIFE for any other reason than unlawful sexual acts on her part, and marries another, commits adultery".

So, essentially, Jesus would be agreeing with the school of Shammai.

But I have issues.

Again, how do we actually put such teaching into practice? Most pastors I know who believe this just rubber stamp the claim that a spouse was unfaithful. I've never seen a pastor deny a second marriage because the divorce was on other grounds.

Also, why the focus on sexual unfaithfulness? Does God not care if a man is physically or emotionally abusive to his wife and children? Why does God only grant an exception if the man is sexually unfaithful???

In my opinion, the "exception clause" brings with it more questions than answers. Treating ALL second marriages as less than God's ideal for man, and therefore sin in God's eyes, brings the necessity for contrition and confession, for all in or pursuing a second marriage. To me, this seems to be far more equitable in its application.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas

So, essentially, Jesus would be agreeing with the school of Shammai.

But I have issues.

Again, how do we actually put such teaching into practice? Most pastors I know who believe this just rubber stamp the claim that a spouse was unfaithful. I've never seen a pastor deny a second marriage because the divorce was on other grounds.

Also, why the focus on sexual unfaithfulness? Does God not care if a man is physically or emotionally abusive to his wife and children? Why does God only grant an exception if the man is sexually unfaithful???

In my opinion, the "exception clause" brings with it more questions than answers. Treating ALL second marriages as less than God's ideal for man, and therefore sin in God's eyes, brings the necessity for contrition and confession, for all in or pursuing a second marriage. To me, this seems to be far more equitable in its application.

If sin is the transgression of the law, then treating ALL remarriage after divorce as sin would be wrong, for the law certainly did allow remarriage after divorce. The key is to determine what the law's parameters and intention is. But since the law provides the written delineation of what is sin, we overreach if we go beyond what is written and declare as sin that which is not declared as such by God.

On a side note, the idea that pastors have anything to do with performing (or denying) a marriage is completely unscriptural and comes straight from Catholic dogma (sacramentalism, clericalism, whereby a man in the church puts himself in the position of God, since it is God who joins two people together in marriage, ie to claim the power to perform or deny marriages in general is a mark of the Man of Sin).

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Raising the bar beyond Pharisaic halachah is not the same as raising the bar beyond Moses. Other than that, your response is pretty good.

Thanks.

Although a couple problems remain:

No position is without it's problems. I'll try to address them the best I can.

1. All those remarried under Moses' law suddenly became adulterers? How is that even possible?

Well, the Law of Moses was God's intention for Israel. Not man in general. It was a part of a covenant to be kept with God. Based on the Mosaic Law, remarriage was permitted. It's sinfulness wasn't fully addressed until the NT when Jesus said that it was never God's intention that husband and wife ever divorce. However, the law allowing for the writ of divorcement was given, not because it was God's will, but because of man's hard heartedness.

2. If they were already adulterers, then Moses (by God's direction) authorized adultery! Which does not seem likely...

The Law authorized a number of things that would be adultery under the fulness of NT revelation. Polygamy, war brides, servant wives, etc. are all adulterous to the first union. Yet they are all permitted under the Law. God winked at much of man's sinful ignorance throughout the OT. But now we have the light of Christ. And Jesus raises the bar beyond the Law of Moses. Now, merely looking at a woman to lust after her is more than just coveting a neighbor's wife, it reveals an adulterous heart.

3. If sin is "transgression of the law", and Jesus classed as sin what the law did not, then how is that not a case of Jesus destroying (abolishing, rewriting, repealing, doing away with) the law (which He specifically said we are not even to think)?

I believe that sin is more than merely a transgression of the law. I believe that sin is anything that violates God's Spirit, mind, and intention for man. Resisting, grieving, and quenching the Holy Spirit are all sins too.

4. Your position seems to provide for condemning as guilty those whom the law says are justified, which is a violation of Deut 25:1, as well as contrary to Proverbs 17:5. Under the law, a divorced woman could remarry and it was not sin, she was justified and innocent in her remarriage. Yet, to condemn such a one as guilty of adultery is an abomination, and those who do such are abominable. But that would mean either Jesus is abominable to God, OR He did not suddenly declare lawfully remarried persons adulterers.

Let me start with this idea...

Matthew 19:7-8 (KJV)
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

As you can see, God never intended man and woman to divorce. Divorce was only a provision provided on account of man's own sinful wickedness and treachery regarding spouses. Therefore, we can be assured that if divorce wasn't God's will from the beginning, certainly remarriage to another wasn't either. All that is therefore associated with divorce in the Law is merely a provision to regulate man's sin, not an endorsement of it.

5. Are we even sure Jesus, in saying "committeth adultery", is speaking in a legal sense? Or is this more like "covetousness, which is idolatry"? IE we know covetousness is not LITERALLY bowing to idols and worshipping false gods, but is rather METAPHORICALLY a species of idolatry. No greedy person could be charged with idolatry, actual idolatry, simply for being greedy.

I believe what you're saying here has a significant degree of merit. Divorce was never God's intention for man and woman. And as a result, neither is remarriage to another after divorce. Yet the Law permitted divorce and regulated remarriage to regulate man's sinfulness in this area. The second marriage is an adultery. Now, it could be said that it is metaphorically an adultery in that it adulterates the indissoluble bond of the first marriage with a second indissoluble bond, making one a serial polygamist in a sense.

6. Those who have been remarried, how are they to repent? Dissolving their current union? But actual adulterers are to remain married? Does that not seem backwards?

I don't believe that another divorce is the answer. God hates divorce. I believe that the marriage bond in God's eyes is indissoluble. That would include the second marriage bond, though adulterous. The only means of repentance is heartfelt contrition and confession of the sin and one's weakness. I lean towards disqualifying such from serving in leadership. Embracing this reality is a part of contrition over this sin. However, I'm not dogmatic on the notion of disqualifying these from leadership. Some interpret it differently, and I see not reason to be divisive on the matter.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If sin is the transgression of the law, then treating ALL remarriage after divorce as sin would be wrong, for the law certainly did allow remarriage after divorce. The key is to determine what the law's parameters and intention is.

Ab-so-lutely. Perhaps we can characterize some things as "best practices," but calling it sin is an entirely different matter.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Antipas

I believe that the marriage bond in God's eyes is indissoluble.

Good afternoon, Antipas!

I feel like I have read this multiple times in this thread (might have been others, I'm not entirely certain), but is there any scripture for this? The Google wasn't very helpful in answering. Ha!

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Thank you for trying to help others see these passage in context. My biggest problem with the "never remarry" crowd is that the real point Christ was trying to make completely escapes them. All they see is a new legalism to bind others with.

I want to help clarify something.

I don't believe that divorcees are "forbidden" to remarry.

In fact, Jesus implies that it is assumed that divorcees will remarry if we pay attention to his language in Matthew 5...

Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

It is a near universal understanding that most human beings will seek a mate, even if divorced. Here, Jesus implies that if a man divorces a woman (save for premarital unfaithfulness) he "causes her to commit adultery". Why? Because it is assumed she will remarry.

So, I see no reason to forbid remarriage.

However, this doesn't negate that divorce and remarriage to another was never God's intention or perfect will. To do so is sin. I know some who argue against remarriage and who seem to forbid it. They are also big on demanding that couples in a second marriage divorce. I see no reason to go to such extremes when Scripture doesn't forbid remarriage, nor does it demand anywhere that remarried divorcees divorce. All it does say is that remarriage to another after divorce is adultery.

If one divorces, the odds are good that eventually they'd desire to be married again. Just because they desire this, it doesn't mean that it's right or that it is God's ideal. They must accept that should they remarry another they are closing the door on all chances of reconciliation with their first spouse (which is God's will). Godly contrition and confession brings God's forgiveness. The Scriptures state:

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If we are willing to confess our sin, God is faithful and just to forgive us. And God will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. God can take the second marriage and make it a blessed thing... if we fall down before Him in contrition over our carnal needs.

As I've said, it isn't the unpardonable sin. But our approach can determine God's response to remarriage. If we are humble and contrite, confessing our sin, God forgives. But my fear is, if we are arrogant, self-justifying, claiming exception where none truly exists just to save face before our fellow man and the human systems we're a part of... well... God why would God forgive one with such an approach? I'd rather confess it with broken heartedness and find out it was perfectly acceptable in God's eyes than assume I have exception and discover at the judgment that it was not God's will and that God was always at the ready to forgive, and even bless, if I had only been less self-righteous.

None of this is directed at anyone here. I don't know anyone's disposition on this topic, so please understand I'm not targeting anyone here. I'm just speaking conversationally.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Originalist

If your ex-spouse has no interest in reconciling, then Paul's admonition about marrying to avoid sexual sin comes into play. It is still better to marry than to burn.

I believe that it is ideal to remain unmarried for as long as one's ex is alive. However, being flesh, we are weak. In this context, it would be better to remarry than to burn with passions that could lead one even deeper in sin.

Still, this doesn't make remarriage God's perfect will for man. It is only a merciful accommodation. It is still an adultery against one's first spouse. It is still a second bond that was never God's intention. No, it isn't unforgiveable. But it is not God's will.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

well I've never heard that one before.

It is an extrapolation from the following passage...

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 King James Version (KJV)
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

The term "unmarried" here is "agamos", while it denotes unmarried singles, it can also be used for divorcees. Some argue for including divorcees in this Pauline advice. Of course, this creates yet another vein of exception and convolutes the issue even more. So, I simply think Paul was talking about those who are singles and widows.